Send lawyers to school

Lawyers should be required to go back to school. Just as nurses, doctors and other professionals are required to receive ongoing education, continuing legal education courses should be required of attorneys practicing in New Jersey. Such programs are required in 42 other states, including Pennsylvania and New York.
Such suggestions have been debated for years. In April, the state Supreme Court established a 29-member committee, headed by former Justice Peter Verniero, to come up with a plan. In doing so, the state's high court hinted that it is poised to support mandatory continuing legal education. The committee, which is due to issue a draft report in June, is charged primarily with helping to determine the shape of a continuing legal education program.
What kind of courses should be offered? In what format will they be taught -- online or in person? Which members of the legal profession will be compelled to take courses? What number of credit hours will be required to maintain a valid law license? And which organizations will be authorized to teach the classes?

These details are the sort that can lead to a first-class donnybrook for a program that affects 80,000 lawyers, who have never been known as a passive bunch.
So it is no surprise that some members of the bar have balked at the notion of continuing education, saying it's a waste of time and there is no evidence that consumers get added value because of these courses. There also is a big push to exempt some lawyers, such as in-house counsels.
The committee should resist the temptation to carve out exemptions. While in-house counsels certainly operate under a different set of rules than attorneys in other settings, even they can benefit from continuing legal education.
It is true that simply offering courses will not prevent malpractice or stop unscrupulous lawyers. Continuing education will not magically reorder the attorney landscape, but it should mean that all lawyers will be forced to update their skills.